Letter from Mr Graham Stringer MP, Parliamentary
Secretary at the Cabinet Office
Regulatory Reform Bill
Thank you for your letter of 1 February, which set
out your Committee's views on the draft Regulatory Reform Bill.
I was particularly pleased to note the Committee's general support
for our proposals.
As you may be aware, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation
Committee (DPDC) in the House of Lords expressed concerns about
the width of the power. Members were worried that the power as
drafted would be broad enough to effect changes other than those
aimed at achieving better regulation. DPDC is, as you will appreciate,
very influential in the Lords, and we would not want to proceed
without being confident that they accepted the appropriateness
of our proposals. Their concern — which your Committee had
clearly also considered — focused on the breadth of the
power to remove "restrictive effects".
My officials are revisiting the power to ensure that
it is wide enough, but no wider than necessary, to cover specific
regulatory reform measures that the Government wants to achieve.
There are one or two other factors that we plan to build into
a package of changes, which we hope will allay the DPDC's concerns
about the Bill. The main message for your Committee is, then,
that the Bill when introduced to Parliament may take a different
shape to the clauses that you have seen and helpfully commented
on. But the main purpose of the Bill will not change; we are still
seeking a tool to tackle burdensome, inappropriate, outdated and
overlapping regulation.
You made a number of points in your letter which
I would like to deal with individually. First, you suggested that
clause 2(7), which encourages "modernising and simplifying
the law" should be strengthened by requiring Ministers to
have regard to the need to draft legislation which is comprehensible
to the persons likely to be affected by it. I certainly agree
that an understandable statute book would be a great improvement
on the current situation. I am inclined to think that the provision
aimed at simplification will to a large extent take care of comprehensibility,
since simple law must by definition be more comprehensible. I
am sympathetic to this point, and I will give it further consideration
prior to introduction of the Bill.
Secondly, you were concerned that the provisions
in clause 3(1), on the imposition of burdens, might not sufficiently
limit the power to the imposition of "small" burdens.
I understand your anxiety on this point. I should explain that
it became clear in drafting the Bill that there was no easy way
to capture the concept of a "small" burden. What is
an onerous burden for one person might be happily shouldered by
another person. Efforts to quantify the burdens and benefits for
each of the different parties involved were not fruitful. But
we hope that the tests which are now in clause 3 will provide
adequate safeguards of the power to impose burdens. Clearly this
particular provision will come under close scrutiny when the Bill
is in Parliament, and the worked examples which we have undertaken
to provide will obviously help a great deal with that.
The Committee recommended that in addition to the
information already listed in clause 7, a Minister bringing forward
an order should be under a statutory obligation to lay before
Parliament a rigorous Regulatory Impact Assessment. We welcome
the Committee's commitment to the policy of RIAs. However we are
loth to include a specific obligation in the Bill to this effect.
As the Committee will be aware, Ministers already prepare RIAs
for all primary legislation and deregulation orders, and place
them in the Libraries of the House. We have every intention that
the practice will continue. I am not sure that the type of statutory
obligation that you suggest would add much to the existing process,
and might lead to duplication of information and confusion if
future policy on regulatory analysis changes (at present, for
example, the Conservative Party is promoting regulatory budgets
as an alternative route). However, I will ensure that the guidance
document for departments on the order-making procedure emphasises
the need for the production and publication of rigorous RIAs.
The Committee was of the view that the provision
in clause 8 for the safeguarding of confidentiality of representations
might be too limiting. I do not see any problem with your suggested
amendment, and have asked for the Bill to be changed accordingly.
I agree wholeheartedly that the definition of "enactment"
in clause 10 should not include the Bill itself, as any further
extension of the order-making power would quite properly require
primary legislation. I have asked for the Bill to be amended accordingly.
However there is no need to do the same for the DCOA as far as
it remains in force. As it will only remain in force in Scotland,
this is a matter for the Scottish Parliament and it would be inappropriate
for Westminster to take such action.
I noted with interest your suggestions for maximising
use of the new power, involving imposing duties on Ministers to
keep their legislation under review and to produce an annual report
on previous and projected use of the power. I should like to give
these points further consideration before introduction of the
Bill.
Finally, you asked that introduction of the Bill
be delayed in order to allow those who were involved in the earlier
consultation exercise to comment on the draft clauses. I am afraid
that in this respect we are entirely at the mercy of the Business
Managers. As you will be aware, the House of Lords is making its
presence felt and I understand there are some not insignificant
problems with timetabling of the legislative programme. I regret
that it is unlikely that the delay you suggest will be possible.
Once again, I should like to thank you for the positive
way in which you have considered the draft clauses. I look forward
to further debate on the Bill during its passage through Parliament.
11 February 2000
| 
